The nature of the test

[George Pazin]

OR

Stroking egos amidst the ever-widening gulfs between levels of golfers

OR

How I learned to keep worrying and fear the state of modern golf...

 

-----

I had an interesting discussion with a friend  a few months ago. We were catching up after we had each separately played Pete Dye Golf Club. He thinks I'm flat out crazy (nothing new there, I know) because he knows I love Oakmont with all my heart, yet was less than overwhelmed by Pete Dye GC; he seemed to feel both were very difficult and that if I loved one, I should love the other.

When I thought about it, time and time again, I came to the following conclusion: It's not the level of difficulty of the test, but rather how one is being tested that matters.

At Oakmont, the test is complete - driving, recovery shots, short game interest, really just everything is tested, for all levels of golfers.

I realize I am simplifying things a bit regarding PDGC (that's what us math geeks do, simplify, test and analyze), but I believe the element that is tested to a far greater degree than all others at PDGC is distance control/consistency. This is an area that is heavily slanted toward the low handicap golfer, or at least golfers that get to play a lot (consistency being one of the side effects of repetition). I think it also explains why PDGC is very challenging - in a great way - to the single digit handicapper, while being very very difficulty to the less consistent high handicapper and most tellingly, almost easy for the pro level golfer, as evidenced by how the Nationwide guys simply destroy the course every year.

So I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts, both on the generic question of how one adequately tests each level of golfer, indeed all levels of golfers (let's leave out the beginners for now, folks) and on the specific question of how Oakmont compares to Pete Dye GC. No less an authority on Pete Dye than Tom Doak has posited that no one knows more about testing pros than Pete, yet they sure do go low at PDGC every year. Is it simply setup (in other words, too soft to defend)?

Call me crazy, call me a bleeding heart, call me an effin' idiot, whatever, just give my your opinion.

[TEPaul]

George:

In my opinion, both are so difficult for the higher handicappers in a scoring sense I'm not sure I see much difference in their straight difficulty level even if those two courses might go about presenting "difficulty" in quite different ways----eg unless the rough is incredibly high at Oakmont high handicappers are just not going to be losing their golf balls to "penalty Rule relief" situations anywhere near the extent they will on the PDGC or most Pete Dye style architecture, for that matter.

I just bet that day in and day out higher handicappers are going to be going home with a lot less golf balls on most Dye courses than they ever would at Oakmont.

And for starters, that alone is a pretty big difference in "The Test."     

But having said all that, I have seen PDGC but it's been a long time and I don't remember it very well.

[Brent Hutto]

At the first Dixie Cup, after-dinner speaker Charlie Rymer said something to the effect that for a touring pro the ideal "test" is a course that gives you a makable birdie putt if you hit an approach shot pin high and punishes shots short and long more than left and right. That's because they consider getting the distance wrong to be a worse shot than being off a couple yards to one side or another so the punishment ought to be severe.

He said this in the context of reactions to classic courses, especially those where there's a big back-to-front pitch to most greens. A tour pro will consider ending up with a ten-foot sidehill putt with two feet of break due to an approach that was perfect distance and three yards left to be, well if not "unfair" certainly not a result commensurate with the quality of the shot. But at places like (help me out here, what's a course with big tilted-forward greens, maybe Oakland Hills?) the game is to try and hit those iron shots on line and leave them a couple yards below the hole. That doesn't play into the best players' strength.

[JMEvensky]

I agree with the premise that "hard" means different things to different people.I've played neither Oakmont nor PDGC so I can only comment generically.

I think,for most players,some things always equate to hard.Length,rough,and deep greenside bunkers don't often engender the "challenge" aspect as much as fast,contoured greens,for example.

I don't know if this is on point,but maybe the severity of Oakmont's greens actually temper the hardness factor for most golfers.Or,everyone expects the greens to be impossible so they factor that into their feelings.Sometimes,impossible greens are fun to putt.Length and rough are never fun.

[George Pazin]

At the first Dixie Cup, after-dinner speaker Charlie Rymer said something to the effect that for a touring pro the ideal "test" is a course that gives you a makable birdie putt if you hit an approach shot pin high and punishes shots short and long more than left and right. That's because they consider getting the distance wrong to be a worse shot than being off a couple yards to one side or another so the punishment ought to be severe.

I like Charlie, but it would be hard for me to disagree more with this. Who is he or anyone else to decide which sort of miss is more worthy of punishment? To me, that is just silly.

Distance control heavily favors practice over imagination. Maybe that's fair among pros who have equal opportunities to practice, but I think it really detracts from the amateur game.

There is nothing I find less interesting than a course whose primary strategical component is "What's my yardage?"

-----

I'm a little disappointed at the lack of response on this thread. What I am really trying to do is develop a framework for evaluating why some very difficult courses are highly regarded, while others are looked at quite differently. Think Oakmont, Bethpage Black, Winged Foot, etc., versus the modern courses that compete to see who has the highest slope rating. Certainly all are difficult, though I'd guess a lot of these high slope monsters are actually pretty easy for Joe Pro.

[Andy Troeger]

I don't agree that shots hit to the side should be punished less than those short or long. I pretty well stick to my usual comment that variety is best.

Quite frankly I get tired of the "lost balls" argument, although I think it has a level of validity. Most high handicappers don't want to 5-putt or pick up in frustration on most of the greens any more than they want to lose a box of golf balls. Any aspect of golf that makes things "more difficult" can be overdone. Unfortunately in the current game the gap between the professional golfer and even the low handicap has grown immensely--not to mention the average golfer.

Personally I think many golf courses can be set up to play tough for the pros, but it becomes borderline goofy golf when the set-up gets so tough as to get the best of the best any particular week to shoot around par. The USGA has done better about this the last couple of years.  George, I do agree that some of these modern courses with high slopes do play pretty easy for the pros. The courses with "junk" on both sides tend to gather many more balls from mediocre golfers than the pros who hit the ball far enough to hit irons and lay back as needed.

I played courses over the weekend with back-tee slopes of 153, 148, and 155. Needless to say, I didn't play those tees but played all three courses around 6600 yards. The 148 slope course was easily my favorite of the bunch and a top 100 course that deserves its position--there was water in play but not overly so and the greens were generally what made the course both interesting and difficult. It was really hard the first time around, but with some practice and a better knowledge of where to miss it, I think an average golfer could have a lot of fun and shoot some decent scores. The 153 course had a lot of trouble and much more chance of losing a ball, but had few forced carries and allowed some different routes of play. My father only hits the ball about 200 yards these days and he handled the course pretty well from 6000 yards. The 155 slope course to me was really brutal for all of us. It included every bit of difficulty from the other two courses combined and felt like a matter of survival. The greens shrugged off mediocre shots, sometimes moving the ball 30-40 yards away. Water lined many of the fairways, including some cape/carry holes. The bunkers were deep and to be avoided but might have been better than some of the other options. The greens were large, undulating, and very fast. I don't think I could break 80 there from 6600 yards unless I played my absolute best (from my days as a 1-2 hcp and not my current self). Yet, the course record, set by a touring pro, is 65. I played poorly at all three courses for what that's worth.

Quite frankly I don't really care about pro golfers anymore or about designing for them. Let them shoot 50 under and keep courses reasonable for normal play.

Other than the ones that are always set up to be super difficult, I wonder if the pros wouldn't take apart many of the classics used for majors if played under normal conditions. For example, I played Southern Hills last year and really liked it, but its nowhere near as difficult for me as some of the modern courses I've played.

[Sean_A]

At the first Dixie Cup, after-dinner speaker Charlie Rymer said something to the effect that for a touring pro the ideal "test" is a course that gives you a makable birdie putt if you hit an approach shot pin high and punishes shots short and long more than left and right. That's because they consider getting the distance wrong to be a worse shot than being off a couple yards to one side or another so the punishment ought to be severe.

I like Charlie, but it would be hard for me to disagree more with this. Who is he or anyone else to decide which sort of miss is more worthy of punishment? To me, that is just silly.

Distance control heavily favors practice over imagination. Maybe that's fair among pros who have equal opportunities to practice, but I think it really detracts from the amateur game.

There is nothing I find less interesting than a course whose primary strategical component is "What's my yardage?"

-----

I'm a little disappointed at the lack of response on this thread. What I am really trying to do is develop a framework for evaluating why some very difficult courses are highly regarded, while others are looked at quite differently. Think Oakmont, Bethpage Black, Winged Foot, etc., versus the modern courses that compete to see who has the highest slope rating. Certainly all are difficult, though I'd guess a lot of these high slope monsters are actually pretty easy for Joe Pro.

George

I think the big difference between highly and not so highly regarded difficult courses comes down to whether or not they have held championships.  I know its simplistic, but holding championships is certainly a much used discriminator when it comes to evaluation of design.  I know (and agree) with the concept of history adding to the experience of the day, but in truth, history and tradition are too dominant in these matters and they always will be.  Its in our nature to want to connect with the past and somehow be part of it.

As for me, I often find the nature of the test on championship courses to be repeating one a hole by hole basis - almost necessarily so if the best are truly tested.  The more we want to test the best the more predictable golf courses will tend to become.  But you are right, there does seem to be a very small percentage (much smaller than given credit for) of championship courses which really do rise above the others, but I would wager there are many, many more non-championship courses which offer a test which is more varied and interesting than many a championship course.

Ciao

[TEPaul]

GeorgeP:

In reviewing your subject here I guess I'm not too clear who you have in mind when you say you'd like to compare the nature of the test of say Oakmont and PDGC. Are you just thinking of the tour pro caliber or golfers of all levels on those two types of difficult courses.

[Brent Hutto]

I like Charlie, but it would be hard for me to disagree more with this. Who is he or anyone else to decide which sort of miss is more worthy of punishment? To me, that is just silly.

Distance control heavily favors practice over imagination. Maybe that's fair among pros who have equal opportunities to practice, but I think it really detracts from the amateur game.

There is nothing I find less interesting than a course whose primary strategical component is "What's my yardage?"

To be more clear about Mr. Rymer's comments...

He was saying what he thought the typical Tour player thought about course design and setups. Most certainly he was not espousing that view himself. IIRC, it was in the context of the question as to why so many classic courses have to be dumbed down or tricked up to accomodate today's elite players.

[Carl Johnson]

George,

As I understand it, you are asking for our opinions on two questions:  (1) the generic question of how one adequately tests each/all levels of golfers (leaving out beginners); and (2) how Oakmont compares to Pete Dye GC.  Regarding question (2), I'd have to ask, "compare in what sense/s?"  However, I've never played Oakmont, so I can't have an opinion on question 2.

I will give you my "opinion" on question 1.

First, what does an "adequate test" mean?  For me, a course is an adequate test if it offers a challenging yet reasonable and enjoyable playing field for the competitors.  From my point of view, golf is competitive game -- me versus other golfer(s).  Thus, it's not me versus the course -- repeat, it's me versus other golfer(s).  Your question seems to point toward the former as the center of the inquiry.

Second, from where I'm coming, whether a course is an "adequate test" depends on whether it gives competitors different strategic options to have a fun and fair competition.  I'm a high handicap senior.  Length itself is immaterial.  I'll play from the tees that suit me.  The test is whether the course presents different playing options that give me the opportunity to choose the route and strategy that gives me the best chance of beating my competitor(s).

Third, then, an adequate test for each/all levels means that golfers an any level can have a fair and reasonable competition against each other, assuming generally the same level of play.  I play only match play or other sorts of hole by hole competitions.  Thus, I have no way of evaluating whether Pete Dye GC, or any other course, is an adequate test for medal play at the professional or championship amateur level.  That having been said, in my one round, last year, at Pete Dye GC I found it to be an exceptionally adequate test from the "senior" tees.  Even in my first round, I could see lots of strategic playing options from which I could pick and choose those that I thought best gave me a competitive advantage.

So, I suppose I really haven't answered your question(s), but on the other hand I hope my "opinionated" response is useful.

[Charlie Goerges]

I think the concept of fairness applies to this discussion. I don't have it all worked out yet, but basically fair equates with easy and unfair equates with hard depending on the obstacle and the level of player negotiating it. For example, a 150 yard carry over water is not fair for a beginning golfer (and is very hard), but is perfectly fair for a single digit handicap player or better (and very easy). Going up to George's example the pros call a place like Oakmont or Winged Foot unfair, but another way to describe it is hard. It seems to me that most players call something unfair when it's simply the case that their own level of skill is not sufficient to overcome it.

So how I take George's example is to say "don't make the course fair for only one level of player and not others. Just make it unfair for all.



I realize that this is mostly BS. But hey, that's why we're here.

[Garland Bayley]

...call me an effin' idiot...

George, you're an effin' idiot. How many times have you played Oakmont?

[George Pazin]

GeorgeP:

In reviewing your subject here I guess I'm not too clear who you have in mind when you say you'd like to compare the nature of the test of say Oakmont and PDGC. Are you just thinking of the tour pro caliber or golfers of all levels on those two types of difficult courses.

I'm talking about all levels of golfers. Basically, I'm trying to figure out why I love Oakmont but only like PDGC. My friend thinks I'm crazy, that both courses are great and difficult. I think both are difficult, but only one is truly great, and I don't think it's simply because that one has held Opens while the other has held Nationwide Tour events.

[George Pazin]

So how I take George's example is to say "don't make the course fair for only one level of player and not others. Just make it unfair for all.

I flat out love this statement, concise and clear, very well said.

[George Pazin]

Quite frankly I get tired of the "lost balls" argument, although I think it has a level of validity. Most high handicappers don't want to 5-putt or pick up in frustration on most of the greens any more than they want to lose a box of golf balls. Any aspect of golf that makes things "more difficult" can be overdone. Unfortunately in the current game the gap between the professional golfer and even the low handicap has grown immensely--not to mention the average golfer.

As one who favors the "lost balls" argument, allow me a quick rebuttal:

The reason I favor this argument is that if you can find your ball, you generally have some chance to make up for your error; it may be an extremely slim chance, but in a match, that could certainly be important. It also introduces an element of decision making much more interesting than "Where am I dropping?" (apologies to rules officials who enjoy determining drop areas ). Lost balls involves both penalty strokes and added time (I know, not in every instance, but generally I believe this to be true).

The "lost balls" argument has nothing to do with the cost of golf balls and everything to do with harkening back to how the game was meant to be played, imho.

Brent -

Thanks for the clarification, now I can go back to liking Charlie.

[Andy Troeger]

George,
I agree with what you said and should amend my previous post. I agree that lost balls are something to be avoided as recovery options add significant interest to the game. My point was more that the "lost balls" test should not be the ONLY way of judging playability. There are some greens designed today that ensure misery for a bad putter in the same way that lost balls do for someone who isn't particularly accurate with their long game.

[Garland Bayley]

There is nothing I find less interesting than a course whose primary strategical component is "What's my yardage?"
...

On the Oakmont threads that you facilitated before the open there, there was much discussion of the strategy of the holes. Clearly the uninitiated perceived the stragegy to be hit it mostly to the center of the fairway, hit it to the safest position with respect to the location of the hole for the day. These uninitiated were chastised by the knowledgeable, and informed that the stragegy was to pick the appropriate distance to hit it to give you the best chance on follow on shots. So it would seem that the knowledgeable would have us believe that the primary strategical component is "What's my yardage?"

My opinion is that both courses would fall into the category of shot testing courses, and that I will not make any great efforts to play either one of them. I am playing Rustic Canyon again in April, and I'm stoked about it!

George, you're a lovable effin' ...
 

[George Pazin]

If you are into playing Rich Goodale-literal games, then every course is a "What's my yardage course?" Unless you're an effin' idiot like me, at some point you're determining a yardage.

To clarify a bit, neither Oakmont nor PDGC are WMY courses, at least not primarily. Both require a good bit of thought. I just happen to believe that the highly acclaimed (in general, not just at PDGC) diagonal tee shots overemphasize distance control.

I'll try to expand more later, probably tomorrow - got a t shirt deadline to meet...

[Garland Bayley]

And my point is that Rustic Canyon has more "choices" than either of the courses this thread is about.

[Andy Troeger]

And my point is that Rustic Canyon has more "choices" than either of the courses this thread is about.

Having not played any of the three I think that would be an interesting study. I sure wouldn't concede the title to Rustic though based on what I know of the three courses. It might be a case of who has more choices at what course dependent on playing ability, etc.

[Philippe Binette]

I don't know about Pete Dye golf Club but one of the things that makes Oakmont so tough to score and at the same time fun for the average player is this:

Variety in the length off the par 4:

They seem to be either really long or short, making for good score for the 15-20 handicap on a few holes and whether the hole is 400 yards or 460 yards, the 15-20 handicaper is not on the green is two anyway.
For the same reason, pro feel a lot of pressure playing the short par 4 at Oakmont because they know they need a couple of birdies to prepare for the long par 4 that will probably cost them 2-3 bogeys a round.

Look at the length of the par 4 (from the tips)

1 - 480    very long
2 - 340    short
3 - 430    long
5 - 380    short
7 - 485    very long
9 - 480    very long

10 - 465  long
11 - 380  short
14 - 360  short
15 - 500  very long
17 - 315  short
18 - 495  very long

You can built a 7100 yards par 70 with every par four playing 415 yards and the pros will eat that alive.... basically 3-wood (260 yards) 9-iron (155 yards) all day for them.

In the same time the 15-20 handicapper will hit driver, 3-5 wood all day on a course with par 4 all at 390 yards.
So the average player gets a lot of pressure to hit good drives of every hole, if not he has no chance of reaching a par 4 in 2 shots all day (He might not see a birdie putt all day). And after a good drive, he is still left with a 5 wood to the green, will likely miss the shot in the wrong spot, won't make a par on par 4s all day and feel terrible.

With a good drive on  the 5 short par 4s at Oakmont, even the 15-20 handicapper can go at the green with a 7 iron to PW a maybe make a birdie. A bad drive on the short hole and it's still  possible to be inside 30 feet for par. Plus with a good drive on one of the longer par 4s and a decent second shot, the 15-20 handicapper can have a 60 yard pitch to the hole as a 3rd shot and maybe save par and be proud of making par on such a tough hole.

Variety in the length of par 4s can do so much...